Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

McGruber writes with some news that slipped by in December: "Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France, but was later stripped of his title after testing 'positive for an unusually high ratio of the hormone testosterone to the hormone epitestosterone (T/E ratio).' In February 2010, Slashdot covered the news that Landis had been accused of hacking into the laboratory that detected the unusually high T/E ratio. Since then, Landis was 'convicted in absentia by a French court for his role in hacking into the computers of a French doping lab,' according to National Public Radio. Landis and his former coach Arnie Baker both received 12-month suspended sentences, according to USA Today."

The reasoning is more like that he wouldn't have doped with such a trivial method if he had known he would be found in the test.
And you can't honestly believe he hoped for "some luck" to make his test results look normal...

...and here in the States we have radicals who want to do away with the common-law system. They're the idiots who howl about "activist judges"; no doubt most of them don't understand what the end result of their desires would be.

Oh really? I'm aware of Louisiana having its own system derived from France's law code a couple centuries back, that New York law has a few remnants of Dutch civil law, and California having codified its laws (civil law style) but keeping the common law system.

I say that the idiots who cry about judicial activism are asking for a system where we don't have the protections of common law.

I don't think you understand what us idiots call "activist judges". An activist judge is one who uses his/her own opinion to base rulings on instead of the law. For example, Prop 8 in California was passed by a majority of Californians, but was struck down by a judge citing "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples". I use this as an example because there is nothing in either the US or Cal

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

You're an idiot. Study the word laic before writing nonsense.French institutions are laic, and that includes the public school system.On the other hand you can bloody worship whoever or whatever you want in your private sphere.

In the US on the other hand, you mix religion and politics like ice and whiskey.So you're the last people that should speak about the benefits of a laic state.

I believe, in fact, he was speaking against the practice of Laicism (though he didn't call it that by name), not speaking "about the benefits of a laic state." Very few people in the U.S., including atheists, would preach against being able to publicly display symbols of your religion. Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?)

Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.

That's exactly wrong. Laicism is about the state not sponsoring any religion. So the "as long as it is not state sponsored" itself is contradicting Laicism, because the state is explicitely forbidden to sponsor religion.

And that means that showing religious symbols in state operated buildings is considered advertisement of religion and this is frowned upon there (not in the public itself, just on governmental premises).

The case is differently with the burqa, because hiding your face in public is considering wearing a mask, and this runs afoul the ban on concealment. The same is valid for ski masks, or motorcycle helmets or whatever. The burqa is not any different from a legal viewpoint.

And how exactly is a private citizen displaying a symbol of his or her religion considered "state sponsored?" It's not like they have state officials coming up to them and saying "I'm happy to see a crucifix around your neck." Those who are offended by others displaying pride in their religion (or lack thereof) are not very strong in their own beliefs and need to do some soul-searching.

The public building gives you room to advertise your religion - you are leeching an opportunity the state gives to all citizens to interact with the state to propagate your beliefs. If you would start to put up advertisements for your business in a governmental building, you also would be complimented out of the door. How is the religion you adhere to any different?

Whatever you may think the core of the cause you're espousing is, if you really want to allow people the freedom to choose, "secularism" is the wrong word. Secularism as an ideal was born out of the French Revolution's persecution of Catholics; ever since then secularism has involved a government hostility towards religion which at least tries to bar religious peoples' voices from the public sphere (extremely anti-democratic) and usually extends to various other kinds of persecution.

This is frequently misunderstood. The principle is similar than in the US, but differently implemented. The idea is that one is completely free to practice whatever religion one wants (there are exceptions for sects who recruit people forcefully), but that in the public space proselytism and displaying outward signs of a religious nature is proscribed. Note that the "public space" does not mean the park or the street, it is quite restricted: it means teaching and being taught in the public system, and inter

No freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state. Muslim women can't wear the burqa in public. Jewish schoolboys can't wear the yarmulke in public schools while Christians are prohibited from wearing "large" crosses. In the name of secularism French society has crossed the line into intolerance and forced compliance with the tyranny of the majority.

You are very wrong here! - The state does not interfere with your right to practice your religion. You can believe what you want and go to church/temple/mosque as you please. You can dress how you like with a few limitations which shouldn't bother anyone. The so-called 'banned symbols' are not essential to the practice in any way - you can wear what you like at home or at your place of worship.

The reason for imposing restrictions especially when it comes to burqa and nijab is to liberate those women who are

The requirement that religion can only be practiced in the home or place of worship is a restriction. The purpose of religious symbols is not advertisement; if someone truly believes that they must wear a yarmulke then it is a severe discrimination to ban this person from attending schools or to require him to deny his religion in public. This is the state becoming big brother in that they claim to know better than anyone else and have decided what is or is not religion and how it should and should not be

I had an American flag shirt that I got one 4th of July. I wore it a lot, and it was one of my favorite shirts (not because I was overly patriotic or anything, just because it was comfortable). Granted, my high-school tenure was between 2000 and 2004, and it was in Arkansas, I was able to do it without any problems. In fact, at the time I didn't even think that it might ever become an issue... anywhere

If kids are being stopped for doing something so innocent... wow... What a crazy state.

I implanted my tongue firmly in cheek and pointed out, that if you're going to be patriotic, you really don't wear the flag as a shirt, as that's what the actual flag etiquette says.

That's totally ignoring the fact that there is no actual ban on wearing a flag shirt to school in California as the previous poster stated and further implied that it's banned because somehow patriotism in California is banned (apparently he hasn't been to Orange County) because

I doubt kids are really stopped from wearing "patriotic" shirts. More likely it's one of those memes from the conservative commentariat designed to keep their listeners afraid and angry, and thus more easily led.

I don't think of it as disrespectful... more just unintentionally offensive.
I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.

Personally I am against flag burning except for when people wrap themselves in one.

It also would show such a shirt-wearer's disrespect for the US flag. It's offensive to the people who've given their lives so that an American can be free to be a douchebag.

I like to think I did my 6 years of service in large part so people can be idiots, douchebags, fat, lazy, crass, rude, craven or whatever they please. If you want to honor my small contribution, please drive really slowly in the fast lane, or tear ass on an elevator, or take a full cart through the express checkout, or misspell 'lose' and 'loose.'

You're looking for "legal", not "OK". It's true that the Flag Code has no legal force (and I'm happy that it doesn't), but if one is going to be obnoxiously patriotic then one should treat the flag with respect.

Oh, don't get me wrong. The sort who wear the flag would probably think me unpatriotic because I don't ape the usual ways of "proving" to all and sundry that I love my country. I just expect them to walk the walk.

When did free speech require flag etfiquette be observed, you can burn the thing if you like I don't see a legitimate argument against issuing it as a shirt or panties for that matter. I also don't agree that attending public school should mean checking your civil liberties at the door.

This. It boggles my mind that the average loudly patriotic type is OK with utterly disrespecting his flag by wearing it as an item of (ratty) clothing, or by flying it in all weather without a spotlight, or by never replacing it once it gets torn and faded. I see that all the time in my area.

Well, you're right, a torn and faded flag doesn't adequately represent this country. You have to patch the tears with the logos of corporations like Coca-Cola (has its own private armies in latin america) or Halliburton (chosen to rebuild the stuff we're bombing in the middle east by the same people who were bombing it, who also worked for Halliburton and owned big pieces of it... Or how about the big 3 automakers for whom we continue to pass ostensibly illegal protectionist laws so that they may continue t

" The flag doesn't mean one fucking thing any more, and you know it. Bravery? Honesty? Are you fucking kidding me?"

There is a reason why every fireman, every officer and every solider wears one on their shoulder. They still believe in what it stands for, as imperfect as that idea may have become in recent years. Call them brave, call them stupid, but they still believe those colors are worth defending, and sometimes dying for.

History is cyclical; either the country, as a whole, will learn what that f

It's this post and others like it that changed your status. Welcome, friend.

I am not a flag waver myself, and some might call me unpatriotic, but I do expect those who profess to be patriotic to know a few things about how to express their patriotism without looking like morons.

Many of the ones who have been hopping up and down about being patriotic in the last 10 years have not been ones for freedom of speech. Opposition to the wars mean that you're nearly a traitor. Just ask any of the current Republicans except for Ron Paul running for President.

Although a lot of the "love it or leave it" rhetoric has disappeared as many have figured out how we've been bamboozled by our politicians into two worthless wars.

It's funny those who are most vociferous about their patriotism don't know anything about how to express it without looking like complete, utter morons to the rest of us. Wearing a flag shirt thinking it's somehow proper and shouting "USA USA" only proves that you're a fool.

And yet, railing against people who wear a flag shirt thinking that there's something wrong with it when the ability to do such things is what makes this country great and shouting "you're immoral" only proves that you're a fascist idiot.

You would seek to bring about your changes through societal and not legal pressure. A fascist can be "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views." Frankly, the idea that wearing the flag is somehow wrong is, today, an extreme right-wing view. Most of us are rather more interested in freedom than in bullshit symbology.

No, he's perfectly free to look like an idiot if he wants to wear a flag shirt. And I am entirely free to call him an idiot. I am absolutely free to use flag etiquette to do it with.

This all started out because the poster I replied to claimed that you can't wear a flag shirt in the state of California because it's not politically correct. This false assumption bruised his inflated sense of patriotism in which he thinks that wearing a flag shirt demonstrates it. Those o

It violates the flag code to make clothing out of a flag, NOT to display a PICTURE or other representation of the flag on a piece of clothing. Do try to get it right if you're going to be anal about the flag code. It makes life so much less vexing.

No, no it really isn't. Wearing the flag to make yourself more grand is what you're railing against, right? Putting the flag on your outfit to make yourself seem more patriotic is a misuse of it by your own standards.

It's also more than a little pathetic. I own an australian outback coat and wear it in the season, as we often get sideways wind and rain. My dad bought me a little flag pin for it so people would think I'm a patriot. Great, now if they think I'm concealing a shotgun, they'll think I'm planning

1- The medical education example is kind of an extreme case, and is due to the fact that medical education is in the hands of the "order" of medical doctors, who want their profession to remain a societal elite. They have a history of making some poor decisions such as favoring some specialists fields over others, leading to long-term dearths in some fields. At present for instance it is hard to get an appointment with an eye specialist in France, because there are not enough of them.

"In the field of education, medicine involving taking in over ten times the number of people you expect to graduate then expelling all but the top tenth in first year exams."

As opposed to what ? taking the right nubmer until the last spot is occupied, and refusing to take the rest ? If you do taht you will have a gaussian of "skills" over your year of people studying medicine. But if you take a whole lot more, but cream up the left side of the gaussian until 95% are thrown out you are left with people wit

Unfortunately because of the debacle that surrounded the last tests of Lance's samples it's hard to say what the truth is. Without testing both samples you can't rule out contamination, which is why they have an A and a B sample to begin with.

Can't let lack of evidence interfere with how the French feel about themselves. They're still pissed off from Lance Armstrong.

The French media just loved Lance Armstrong, as anybody who actually knows anything about the subject can attest. But of course when it turned out that he was just a cheating doper, some journalists began to write critical articles about him and the entire doping circus he represented.

Lance Armstrong is a cheating doper, no doubt about that; he has simply failed too many doping tests that anybody can deny that. But for technical reasons he can't get a doping sentence because retro-testing can't be used as e

There was one positive test and there wasn't the normal second sample to validate against. The French paper managed to dig up results that weren't supposed to be released of a B sample that tested positive. The reason he wasn't charged was that there was supposed to be a second sample that could be used to verify that the sample hadn't been contaminated.

It has nothing to do with a ban on retro testing and everything to do with the poor quality of evidence.

Personally, I think he probably did it, but in civilized society you can't randomly lower the bar because you didn't get the result you wanted.

"Judges said that although no evidence directly linked Messrs. Landis and Baker to the hacking of the antidoping lab, both men benefited from the illegal intrusion."So, basically, anyone who benefits from a crime is somehow culpable whether or not they actually had anything to do with it.Gotta love that French "justice" system...

So some clueless blogger totally misrepresent the case and the submitter gives it a flat out wrong headline.

Landis, a known lying doper and cheater, hasn't been convicted for hacking, but for being in possession of stolen documents. Landis, when he was still lying about his doping, was showing these documents to everyone interested, claiming that they showed his innocence, so there is no arguments about him being in possession of these documents.

So Landis escaped a hacking charge and mere got a sentence for being in possession of stolen documents. I am sure that any US citizen publicly showing medical lab records stolen in an hacking accident, would get into trouble with US laws, and rightly so.

At least someone intelligent on slashdot. I have lived for many years in France *and* in the US and I have grown extremely tired of the constant misrepresentation of what happens in France by US media (and vice versa, unfortunately). The unavoidable subsequent avalanche of xenophobic comments by people who obviously do not have a clue is no less appalling. It generally takes me no more than 5 minutes to debunk 95% of lies spreads about France/US in the media, too much work apparently. Sigh.

Landis is being punished for daring to defy the anti-doping authorities, insist on his rights to a public hearing (no longer allowed), and embarrassing the hell out of the USADA and WADA by absolutely demolishing their scientific credibility with regard to the testosterone case (after they had to dig in their heels because they had already illegally released the preliminary reports, pre-B sample test to the media). I would note that in the original (and appealed) decisions, the panels through out the initial T-E ratio test as being hopelessly compromised. The mass spectrometry tests were allowed to stand, despite being the quality of lab work that would get laughed out of a college chemistry class, because both panels chose to totally disregard the testimony of John Amory. (see: http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=383 [rant-your-head-off.com] or http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/12/winnowing-john-amory.html [blogspot.com])

Now, as it turned out, Landis later admitted to doping with HGH that season, and testosterone in previous seasons. But I really think that's incidental to this case. He's being punished because he showed the WADA and UCI are just as corrupt as the cyclists, and the Chatenay-Malabry lab technicians are too incompetent to run a mass spectrometer that undergraduates successfully use thousands of times a day in research labs.

No, what happens when you refuse to show up for a criminal trial is that it's adjourned. If you were absent without good reason then you can enjoy being charged for failing to turn up. If you don't make yourself known then you'll be arrested and forced to turn up.

Nothing else is presumed about your absence because it goes against natural justice to convict you without the opportunity to defend yourself.

Civil trials, where the purpose is to provide specific compensation for loss rather than to protect societ

There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.

You're probably looking for Federal Rule 43 of Criminal Procedure, clarified by the Supreme Court's opinion after Crosby in 1993. You can sometimes excuse yourself from a trial after it has commenced and it might be inferred that you're still in the courtroom but simply not saying anything, i.e. the trial continues as if you're there. But if you refuse to show up for a trial then, like I said, you will not be convicted in your absence.

Excusing yourself after the trial has begun, a voluntary decision made af

There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.

Usually it's to facilitate injustice.

When Ira Einhorn was being extradited from France, they objected to the fact that he'd been convicted in absentia and insisted that Pennsylvania grant him a new trial. So they understand it's unjust too.

Ever heard of circumstantial evidence? Doesn't directly link them, but can easily be enough to land a conviction in many cases. Hard to say much without more information, of course. Quick check at the WSJ link for that quote shows that Landis' trainer, a Mr. Baker, had stolen files up on his website from the lab, given to him by Landis' attorneys. Pretty damning evidence.

Why does doping get such a bad rap?
The anti-doping groups are terrified of new doping methods they cannot detect.
This is great, if the doping has no adverse side effects and is not detectable then I want some!
I want these athletes testing out drugs and the long term affects and me benefiting from watching their performances and some day using safe versions of the drugs

Anti-doping is a waste of money. They should be putting money into making doping safe.

Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster. Some have more money for better training, coaching, and equipment.
No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anywayPlease. I'd love for you to name a single sport that wouldn't be assisted by the use of steroids. Strength is a fundamental basis of every sport and if it isn't, it's an activity, rather than a sport. In which case, there's also drugs for that - beta blockers, caffeine, etc.

Also, there's a huge difference between "undetectable" and "no adverse side effects."

I agree strength is important in about every sport i can think of, and sure steroids would assist an athlete in obtaining greater strength; but in most highly skilled sports it would never make or break a winner.

I do not care how strong or fast you are, if you cannot dribble and shoot a basketball doping is going to do nothing to make you an NBA star.
A little doping may make an NBA star faster or jump higher, but then we would expect the younger stronger players to always dominate.
Instead we watched Jo

Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.

Well he's retired now, right? And if he attempted a comeback this year, it would be a weird joke, he couldn't even play bench. He hasn't lost the skill and the NBA hasn't overtaken the skill level Michael Jordan once had. So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.

There's millions of kids who aspire to the NBA, and tens of thousands of very skilled basketball players. 300 make it to the NBA. With such a large talent pool, there's plenty of player who are 98% as good, but just not quite there. I sincerely believe that these players who didn't make the NBA, if given unfettered access to steroids, would be better than Kobe Bryant. Even if they didn't, Kobe would no longer be such a dominating player, unless he also started juicing. Steroids are just that effective, and strength that important.

Think about Barry Bonds, who at the age of 37 had a sudden power surge and shattered batting records. A hundred years of baseball history tells you, baseball players don't dramatically increase their power in their late 30s. They do what A-Rod is doing in his mid 30s, getting dramatically less powerful and with less ability to recover sufficiently. Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie. Jose got more into juicing and won unanimous AL MVP and had a near Hall of Fame career, Ozzie Canseco was never a regular starter.

Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good. I think steroids deserve more study than they receive, maybe in the future all old people will take HGH, but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.

THIS.
Anti-doping is a joke. Every single athlete that competes in word-class level is on drugs one way or another. Or if he isn't NOW, he will be in a few years when another scandal erupts and he gets stripped of his medals (Marion Jones is the brightest example). This anti-doping hypocrisy must stop, if the athletes want to risk their health for world records and money, well let them have it, its their choice.

The illusion of choice. Right, look up the story of the various athletes in the history of sport who were forced to use performance enhancing drugs through their federation. Most obvious are the former Eastern Germany female swimmers. I doubt they are very happy now. Maybe in a couple hundred years when the world is everywhere a democracy. Even then, people would have to start using drugs very early on, when they are minors. What *choice* would they have ?

Recently Ryan Braun (rookie of the year, Major League Baseball) has been disputing a positive drug test that appears to be the same one Floyd Landis disputes, namely an abnormally high epitestosterone/testosterone ratio. In Braun's case, it appears that MLB's testing protocol involves doing a cheap but prone to false-positives first test, then a more costly and accurate second test if the first is positive. In Braun's case, what has gone horribly wrong is that the results of his first test (positive) were leaked BEFORE the second test was run. Now everyone has lawyered up and the assclowns who run MLB have some explaining to do. This is discussed at length with all available public info here:

What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers, and under the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.

What does this have to do with Floyd Landis? Just that epi/natural testosterone comparisons aren't cut and dried, and that the French do like to find winning non-French bikers to be dopers,

You do know that he has admitted doping, right? He has since described how it happened: The suspicious blood levels and performance spike were the result of a transfusion with blood carelessly taken too shortly after taking testosterone during training. Blood transfusions can be detected by the presence of blood preservatives and plastic weakeners from the blood bag, but tests for these are not considered conclusive evidence on their own, if i understand correctly from the Alberto Contador case last summer.

Unde the French Napoleonic code of justice you are guilty until proven innocent.

Did you learn that in school or did you vaguely hear about it on the internet somewhere? This is completely false. Presumption of innocence is *more* enshrined in law in France than in the USA:

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty...". The Code of Criminal Proced